cannabisnews.com: Pot Case Ruling Expected





Pot Case Ruling Expected
Posted by CN Staff on July 08, 2003 at 07:46:56 PT
By David L. Beck, Mercury News
Source: Mercury News 
A federal judge promised Monday to decide ``soon'' whether to restrain the U.S. government from acting against a medicinal marijuana users' group in Santa Cruz whose farm it raided in September.The decision can't come soon enough for the plaintiffs, who say time is against them. Fourteen members of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana have died since agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration raided the group's co-op in September, said Valerie Corral, alliance co-founder and a plaintiff in the suit.
And if the alliance is going to have a crop next year, she said, the marijuana has to be planted not much later than mid-July.In a hearing in San Jose on Monday, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs.``One cannot read the declarations before the court without being moved by them,'' he said, but added, ``I cannot tell you when'' the ruling on a temporary restraining order against the U.S. government might come.Not only is it summer -- with vacations to consider -- but ``there are some more issues involved in this,'' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark T. Quinlivan, who argued the government's case.Late last year, it took about a month for Fogel to rule against WAMM's request to have the seized marijuana plants returned, he said. ``It would not surprise me if it went to September.''Quinlivan otherwise declined to comment, citing departmental policy. The defendants are Attorney General John Ashcroft, National Drug Control Policy Director John P. Walters, and William B. Simpkins, acting administrator of the DEA.But the judge's remarks were cause for optimism among attorneys for the plaintiffs, the city and county of Santa Cruz along with WAMM and seven of its members.``The judge is looking for hooks that have not been presented to the court before,'' said Gerald Uelmen, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. They include the presence of terminally ill patients among the plaintiffs and the addition of local governments to the case. Fundamental rights WAMM is arguing that depriving its members of medication they say works violates their fundamental rights, and that the marijuana co-op, whose members grow the plants for their own use, is not engaged in interstate commerce -- or, indeed, in commerce of any kind, since no money is involved -- and is therefore not subject to federal control.The 9th Circuit, the federal appeals court for the West, ``has squarely rejected the contention that there is a fundamental right to obtain unproven medical treatments,'' the government has argued, noting that Congress, in passing the Controlled Substance Act, made no exception for medicinal marijuana.Armed DEA agents raided Valerie and Michael Corral's Davenport-area home Sept. 5, handcuffing the couple, seizing membership lists and photo albums, and ripping out 167 marijuana plants. WAMM sued, unsuccessfully, to get them back.Santa Cruz City Council members showed their support for the co-op by allowing it to hold its regular marijuana distribution on the steps of City Hall 12 days after the raid. Though council members were careful not to touch the sealed packets of marijuana, the event drew national attention.In December, the council deputized the Corrals, making it clear that as far as the city is concerned, the Corrals are acting in an official capacity. County officials joined the WAMM lawsuit in April, holding a televised news conference on the steps of the courthouse. Local vs. federal control Since California voters in 1996 passed a medicinal marijuana initiative, the Compassionate Use Act, the legal battle is playing out in some respects as a local vs. federal control issue. Judge Fogel noted a certain parallel with the desegregation cases of the 1950s, when national policy was held to trump local control.Whoever wins at the district court level, the case is certain to be appealed. Neha Nissen, a member of the giant national law firm Bingham McCutchen, which is working for the plaintiffs, said she believes Fogel will rule before the month is out.If Fogel grants the temporary restraining order, WAMM's members could use marijuana without fear of government interference. If he rejects it, the appeals could begin immediately.``If I had to guess,'' Nissen said, ``if he's going to rule in our favor, it'll be on the fundamental rights issue.'' But, she added, ``It's hard to tell. We'll take anything.''Note: Judge will decide 'soon' on whether to block U.S. from acting against Santa Cruz Marijuana Group. Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)Author: David L. Beck, Mercury NewsPublished: Tuesday, July 08, 2003Copyright: 2003 San Jose Mercury NewsContact: letters sjmercury.comWebsite: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/Related Articles & Web Sites:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Pictures from WAMM Protesthttp://freedomtoexhale.com/eventpics.htmJudge Seeks Help From Pot Advocates http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16779.shtmlProponents Say DEA Raid on Pot Farm was Illegalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16774.shtmlJudge Indicates He Wants To Protect Pot Patients http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16771.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Darwin on July 08, 2003 at 08:04:51 PT
Interesting website
This is a little off-topic, but I found a website that is a fantastic tool for the people against politicians.http://opengov.media.mit.edu/This website is a response to the TIA program the government set up. It is a TIA for government officials or "GIA"
At this site you can see the breakdown of who backs which politicians. Take a look and do a little research on the politicians that are supposed to represent you and see who they really speak for.The site will be allowing anonymous information to posted so that all politicians will have records of their good and bad deeds for anyone to quickly review. Big brother now has a little brother with many more eyes available.I'm still researching, but I'm amazed at just how much money lawyers are giving to politicians. IE: Hillary Clinton gets 1.5 Million from law firms. Her next largest group is 800K from Women's issues groups. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment